In response to accusation of using “wild statements hoping to avoid the truth” and to take up the challenge of Rob Sutherland’s request for science in comments in the Lethbridge Herald, this is my response.

You are rather facetious in objecting to lack of impartiality by using a web site advocating my position, thus inferring that I use web sites or data that support arguments against my position. How silly of you. Of course I am partial to my position and where else would I get data that are in support of my position? That is a terrible mistake on your part to use this type of twisted tactical logic on a person like me.

However, you ask for proof, you get proof:

You state: major reviews of water fluoridation show no reliable effect on fractures” this is refuted by these data/research:

These cover studies and research for chronic (long term) ingestion of fluoridated water using hydrofluorosilicic acid at recommended levels. There are 6 more, do you want the whole list or will this satisfy your curiosity?

As to Mr. Sutherland’s data, I have not seen any actual citations. Are you not aware that the government reviews he mentions are stacked with pro-fluoridationists. This is a fact recognized by two eminent writers in the pro-fluoridation camp, and not a wild accusation.

In their recent book Fluoride Wars (2009), Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr concede this point: “There is one anti-fluoridationists charge that does have some truth. … (they name 10 such reviews, though there are more, and continue) … are rife with names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.”

How can such reviews be accepted as unbiased and not be a whitewash of the situation?

You really should read the following three books and see for yourself how the duplicity of certain men and organizations have sold us down the river on Artificial Drinking Water Fluoridation (ADWF), especially using the toxic waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry as a fluoride substance called hydrofluorosilicic acid (see specification data sheet or one of its synonyms (see the MSDS).

And what about this 4th one for good measure:Fluoride The Aging Factor – Dr. John Yiamouyianis, 1993, 3rd pub’n.

I own and have have personally read these books.

Or, you may choose to look at this PowerPoint presentation on the problems surrounding the use of this acid as a fluoride substance for ADWF if you would rather spend only about 12 minutes instead of reading some real world written works.

You would then see for yourself that even intelligent persons such as yourself and Rob have been duped into believing a lie and that you could both attest to that lie. Or do you really want to be burdened with the truth about ADWF?

Every time I make a statement or a claim, it is always backed by research. I have personally viewed and read each of the reports or research to prove to myself that they are genuine and legitimate. Can you or Rob say the same?

Groups of people like ours have repeatedly asked for the research data claimed by the CMA, the OMA, the CDA, the ODA, our municipal Medical/Dental Officers of Health and Health Canada over the past 10 years. They have been unable to supply any such tangible, valid research data. Their response has been that there is no such data in their possession. A dubious and evasive statement at best. Where there is no proof to claims, there is no truth, only falsehood.